Love.Law.Robots. by Ang Hou Fu

LegalTech

Feature image

It turns out that doing three things on the same day is a disaster. On top of listening to this year's TechLawFest, I also took on a Microsoft PowerApps course together with my regular job. Who has the time to attend these multi-day events? Thankfully, many of the events are recorded, so you can still take part in them unless you are hungry for continuing education points.

TechLaw.Fest 2021TechLaw.Fest 2021TechLaw.Fest 2021

As such, hopefully, this post will help you get into the festival's key themes. Even if you can't fork out 30++ hours of your daily schedule going through all the content (including all that recorded waiting time for people to log on), you're going to sound smart with a list like this.

Thing 1: Lots to discuss in the Technology of Law

My favourite parts of the conference are the panel presentations:

This title was far too misleading — you're not going to hear so much about blockchain and whatever, but about what skills and knowledge lawyers today need to succeed in their field.

I liked this panel presentation a lot because of the battling viewpoints. It focuses on service delivery, too, i.e. whether to develop in-house or to outsource. The depth of the presentation will be beneficial if you have never really considered what it takes to implement technology changes in an organisation.

Finally, I was disappointed that the keynote speech did not focus very much on the leadership of firms (that isn't saying that the industry leaders in the Ministry, SAL, etc., are very focused on the issues). So I was glad that they created a space to discuss leaders in a panel. As a Singaporean, I was thrilled that at least one law firm in Singapore gets it. (Then again, Rajah & Tann is at the vanguard of all this.)

In a previous post, I did sound sceptical about the focus of the program, but there is something to take home for everyone. Now I need to find more time to watch all the sessions!

Love.Law.Robots. — 16 August 2021Welcome to another edition of this bi-monthly members-only newsletter. It features mini-articles curated just for members and little personal reflections.Love.Law.Robots.HoufuI previewed the festival a month earlier here. (Free subscription required)

Sometime in October 2020, the Ministry of Law announced a 10-year technology and innovation roadmap, and one of the more concrete plans was a “legal technology platform”. If you want to be sceptical, a platform can mean anything and everything at the same time. A curated list of resources? A one-size-fits-all shtick? Do I have to give up everything to be on this system?

As this appears primarily for law firms, I haven't tuned in to this regularly. So, Wednesday was the first time I had a more concrete idea of this platform. In one word — Lupl. Artificial Lawyer recently wrote about it as well.

So, the gist is that you can bring your service onto the platform and use them in an integrated manner. You would then unite information silos from other technology platforms onto a single platform, looking at matters instead of disparate strands of communication.

UntitledSource: Lupl (https://www.lupl.com/how-it-works)

I initially thought the idea was lame. I couldn't understand how being able to view everything on one platform helps anyone. (There is already a platform that lawyers use all the time — it's called a laptop.) However, the conference has reduced my scepticism a lot. Seeing some screenshots, I think the unifying concept is “Tasks”, so it is more value-added rather than a supercharged Zapier.

For law firms in Singapore, the game-changer will be integrating with government services, especially eLitigation, ACRA and other government searches. Astute readers might be upset. Shouldn't the Ministry develop APIs to allow access to these government services instead of creating or working exclusively with a proprietary platform? Hopefully, public APIs become a collateral benefit of the platform, rather than the Ministry putting the cart before the horse.

The parties who are likely to benefit the most from this platform are small law firms. If I have the same dream as the Ministry, law firms with no legal technology (Microsoft Outlook and Word don't count) will “tech-celerate” substantially by getting the whole package on this platform.

However, for small firms, evaluating the costs of this platform may be tricky. The platform's competition isn't other platforms or products but the status quo. As I understand it, charges will be based on interactions with the platform. Small law firms wouldn't have a clear idea on a quantitative basis how much they interact with technology and can't compare the costs and benefits of being on the platform. Many would have to jump in on a leap of faith. Many more wouldn't be bothered because they can't demonstrate the usefulness in their small businesses with thin margins. Hopefully, the Ministry will provide support to make this work.

Thing 3: Selling skills will be very challenging for the innovative lawyer

Business timePhoto by Marten Bjork / Unsplash

The usual paradigm for hiring lawyers is PQE (years of experience) and the areas of law in which you have expertise. These metrics are still crucial when you are hired for your substantive knowledge. However, things get somewhat dicey once you move past these traditional metrics.

It's all well and good to be well-versed in the legal issues of stuff like cryptocurrency, blockchain and artificial intelligence. The reality is that while technology law will be alive to lawyers on the cutting edge, the pie isn't big enough to hire so many cutting-edge lawyers. Not everyone wants to live on the bleeding edge, either.

As one of the speakers on the panel noted, having an e-commerce platform isn't only a TMT or IP issue. Issues like foreign investment, international trade law and contract law have a place. It isn't easy to imagine which area of law to focus on when you are a student. Indeed, there are subjects in law school I wished I had studied on, and others I never touch these days.

Furthermore, every lawyer should focus on his lawyering skills, not his tech skills. I have not heard of someone willing to hire a lawyer because of his coding skills. If I wanted a coder, I'd hire a coder! The competitive edge of a lawyer (even against robots) is always going to be lawyering.

Do coders need to learn to law?A course in the Singapore Management University aims to deliver the best of both.Love.Law.Robots.HoufuIf you're a coder who wants to law, you have options. (Free subscription required to read)

While I know software development and networking as an interesting person, I never use this in my day-to-day work. In any case, writing code for production is quite different from doing it for fun. So even if I know my way around the code, I would rely on a software developer for my software. Your first instinct is to get the tools required (software, people or consultants) to resolve your problems rather than build these tools yourself.

So there are specific skills that are important in a new technological age — managing a project, managing a team of lawyers and (gasp) non-lawyers, and process thinking and design. Above all, even when thinking about new technologies like blockchain, you will need imagination, curiosity, and entrepreneurial spirit. Technology and projects aren't always going to work in your favour — you will need resilience too.

How does one include “imagination” or “resilience” in his CV? When lawyers have been judged all their lives by their experience, recognising other skills and experiences that set them apart will be the real challenge in this new age. If the industry truly appreciates these skills, it will require them when they look for hires. That's when we can reasonably expect law students to do this technology thing.

Conclusion

I adore TechLawFest and am always trying to increase my participation every year. It wasn't easy to be involved when I was practising as you are always doing your day job. I'm thankful we will still have these events, and maybe next year, we will be there in person!

Enjoyed this post? You can read more about law and technology on Love.Law.Robots. and continuing to support my work by subscribing today. I post at least once a week and subscribers get a free members only newsletter. Thank you!

Subscribe to Love.Law.Robots. today!

#tech #TechLawFest #TechnologyLaw #LegalTech #Singapore #Law

Author Portrait Love.Law.Robots. – A blog by Ang Hou Fu

Feature image

There's a conclusion on a case in Germany I have been tracking for a few years. It's one of the very few cases I am aware of where lawyers actually challenged LegalTech and if they have succeeded, killed an industry.

You can read more about the case (in English) on Artificial Lawyer. Basically, lawyers in Germany have been taking Wolter Kluwer's Smartlaw to Court for what they claim to be an unauthorised practice of law. They claimed that by providing an expert system, Smartlaw was giving legal advice, which could only be performed by lawyers (which Smartlaw wasn't). The lawyers had a victory in Cologne. However, the highest court in Germany has now confirmed that Smartlaw does not give legal advice, so the legality of Smartlaw and document generating solutions is now quite safe there.

Wolters Kluwer Wins Landmark German DIY Doc Generation CaseWolters Kluwer has finally won a landmark battle in Germany for the right of people and businesses to download ‘DIY legal documents’ without the input of lawyers, in what was a key test…Artificial LawyerartificiallawyerNo longer verboten indeed.

The reasoning of the Federal Court of Justice is interesting. It held that because there was a lack of an individual assessment of the case's legal merits, Smartlaw provided no legal advice. This appears reasonable — when a programmer creates an expert system, he does not have a particular individual in mind and never knows his “client”. Besides the heavy type which usually accompanies such solutions, most consumers know that the system is not a complete replacement to seeing an actual lawyer.

What does this mean in Singapore?

Singapore City SkylinePhoto by Stephanie Yeh / Unsplash

Germany is pretty far in most lawyers' minds in Singapore. The differences in legal traditions suggest this decision would not have much precedential or persuasive value if a similar case were brought here.

The definitions of an unauthorised practice in Singapore are different from Germany. Based on the “I call it as I see it” approach to this issue by the courts, this could easily have gone either way.

The Importance of Being AuthorisedA recent case shows that practising law as an unauthorised person can have serious effects. What does this hold for other people who may be interested in alternative legal services?Love.Law.Robots.HoufuI wrote about unauthorised practices recently in response to a case in Singapore. (Free subscription required)

On the one hand, generating legal documents based on questions I ask a client is the hallmark of a lawyer's work, so this must be a legal practice. On the other hand, one doesn't write expert systems by imagining how to ask a real client—rules before templates before particular fact situations.

Thus, having a business proposition based on document generation, like a super-charged docassemble in Singapore, is still risky in Singapore if it clashes with lawyer regulation.

Nevertheless, the decision is still pretty relevant here.

This is one of the most vivid and realistic real-world examples of challenges to LegalTech concerning lawyer regulation. Most people imagine a robot lawyer to be a pretty advanced expert system. It's always been tempting to draw a line from “robot generating legal documents” to “legal advice” and finally “unauthorised practice”. The Germans have done it, and their highest court has answered definitively that they are not illegal. Even if there is a legally persuasive reason in our jurisprudence, it would be odd if we were an outlier.

Furthermore, while the result is satisfying, the reasoning does not give much comfort. The fine line of an “individualised assessment” might be relevant in Germany's context, but another jurisdiction like Singapore might regard the individualised assessment as necessary to protect consumers. For example, do we really want consumers to go away with printing a document that they execute wrongly? The shocking consequence of a failed will may be too much.

Who wants to do an E-Will?COVID-19 offers an opportunity to relook at one of the oldest instruments in law — wills. Is it enough to make them an electronic transaction?Love.Law.Robots.HoufuAn earlier post considering the electronic execution of wills explains why change is prolonged here (free subscription required).

Honestly, I think our authorities would take the pragmatic approach. There's no denying that such expert systems explore a gap that lawyers don't or can't fulfil. An “individualised assessment” may be too expensive in several cases. Many solutions by the authorities and established parties already deploy such an approach and might be dispensing legal advice such as chatbots, wills and court forms for litigants in person. So, killing off this industry or idea at this point seems pretty far fetched.

However, this outcome might be speaking to the current limitations of an advanced expert system. Docassemble can solve many problems, but it can't do everything. On the one hand, it might take us some time to develop a highly advanced expert system, which probably has to be customised for each industry or jurisdiction. On the other hand, there are also user experience issues (clients are distraught and stressed when it comes to legal matters, and a computer asking questions doesn't seem very empathetic).

Divorce HelperDivorce Helper gives you legal information about divorce in Australia. Divorce Helper is free to use and you do not need to tell us who you are.Divorce HelperI find this to be a pretty good (and pretty) example of an empathetic interview.

It's not impossible that a “robot lawyer” will challenge the status quo. Till then, this legal battle might still have a few more stages in it.

#LegalTech #docassemble #Law #Singapore

Author Portrait Love.Law.Robots. – A blog by Ang Hou Fu

Feature image

Sometime in 2019, I read Technical Blogging and realised several things missing about my blog. That's when I wrote, “Why I would use Excel for my Contract Management System”, as a demonstration of what I learned. Lo and behold, it is one of the best performing posts on the blog.

I want to think that the post was pretty effective. Try and answer a need that a reader may have, etc. However, I think it's more likely because people really want to use Excel to manage their contracts.

Why I would use Excel for my Contract Management SystemHow do I get on this legal technology wave? Where do I even start? A “contract management system” or a “document management system” (“CMS”) is a good place. Business operations are not affected, but the legal department can get their hands dirty and show results for it. If you wouldLove.Law.Robots.Houfu

Two years have passed. Do I still have the same opinion? Would I use Excel for contract management?

I am still using Excel.

Let's go to the ending first: I am still using this system after two years. Many of the complaints I expected still held:

  • It's incredibly tedious. I don't really have the time to input all the fields properly. With the pandemic situation, it's not been straightforward to get cheap help either.
  • Some of the fields I selected were not so helpful. For example, the free text input for some fields like services etc., made it difficult to gain insight across broad data ranges.
  • It just isn't convenient. I wanted badly for the system to let me know when there were expiring contracts. However, I had to set a time manually to open the document and extract the information. This was not a commitment that I could keep easily.

However, the system stood up to be counted on when I needed it. I have been able to locate and check previous contracts, which the original department could not find. Furthermore, when I needed to find out the number of jurisdictions we did business with, it was a simple Pivot chart. A pretty graph I could show my management in less than an hour.

Lessons Learnt

Even though I have stuck with Excel, I found my experience illuminating, and it definitely prepared me for my other projects in implementing document automation and e-signature. Here's a list of lessons I have learned that will give you insights into your own journey.

1. Don't underestimate Excel.

This old green toolbox wears its age well and hints at owners long past, their workday woes and triumphs—the daily grind. Photo by Susan Holt Simpson / Unsplash

The Office 365 apps are not only ubiquitous but are also very malleable. The example close to a tech lawyer's heart is Microsoft Word. Microsoft Word is not an excellent tool for writing court submissions and contracts. But they can do that, as well as letters, forms, notices, policies, documentation and the list. Since you can find Word on many computers at our workplaces, they are used ad nauseam even when there are better ways to write letters or contracts.

If you're impressed with what a word processor like Microsoft Word can do, wait till you see Excel. Of course, writing court submissions with Excel appears farfetched, but I have come across contracts written with Excel. More sophisticated (and correct) uses of Excel include compiling and analysing data and presenting summaries.

If you manage your contracting data in Excel, Excel can process such data to extract and analyse data, as we did in my 2019 post. The information you input in the form might look like a table, but it's become more than that. Using its built-in functions, you can extract and manipulate the data inside.

So, if you find Microsoft Office apps on your computer, don't dismiss them too quickly. It's definitely a part of your toolbox, and you can do some pretty amazing things with them.

2. Seek data, not information

Document folders on the shelvesPhoto by Viktor Talashuk / Unsplash

A strange insight came to me once I tried to push Excel to do more with my information. What's the point of putting in the dates of the contract, the jurisdictions of the counterparty, or governing law of the contract? The most immediate answer is that it summarises the contract and its risk profile as a lawyer. When it's a table, I can broadly see this information across a range of contracts.

For a computer or a program like Excel, this risk profile information has no meaning by itself. To make your data work harder for you, a program like Excel has to recognise special characteristics like dates, categories and numbers. Once Excel knows more about the data it is handling, further processing like analytics over a time span or clustering becomes possible.

Once you have that going, you are no longer dictating to Excel what your information is and how your information should be presented. Now Excel can do some of the heavy lifting for you in computing your data as you explore it. Doing more with less! New insights!

In my experience, staring at the information you have at hand doesn't always immediately deliver data. Special insights came when I used the system more and realised what other information I could capture. Suppose you could explore your contract data with purpose-built systems. That's awesome. However, if you only have access to Excel, it's better to use that than to be led by your feelings around the information.

3. The best tool for the job can be Excel

I had a few hours to kill in Copenhagen, so I went to the Sorte Diamant Library to take some photos. Libraries are quiet places and staff members aren’t always thrilled to hear camera shutters go off. As I was firing away, I noticed a staffer approaching from my side. I said a photographers’ prayer and prepared to get told off. He said to follow him and I obliged. We walked through a door with a “staff only” sign, found our way down a narrow corridor and entered a huge room, dimly lit, filled with archived books. “You’ll get good shots in here”, the librarian said and then got back to work.Photo by Marten Bjork / Unsplash

In reality, you would not be innovating in a vacuum. There might already be several tools in your organisation, and they may have users too. Google Docs is all right, and I'm not too fond of Microsoft Word. I really like Notion too. Would I be able to convince everyone around me to drop Microsoft Word and adopt Google Docs or Notion immediately? It's a tall order.

This is what “no-code” should look like — NotionWhat do we really want from a “no-code” product? Notion shows we want well designed software which can deliver a big impact in small ways.Love.Law.Robots.Houfu

Furthermore, your solution is supposed to fill gaps in the organisation. Every organisation is different so that the best solution has to be customised for each organisation. There may be places and times where adopting a complete, point to point solution is the best approach. Very often, though, you'd have to do some real work of substituting, eliminating, consolidating or reusing something that's already there. You have to lay the groundwork.

A tech lawyer shouldn't focus on what tools are out there but what tools he can have to do the job. At times, leadership is not so forthcoming to invest in a costly platform. To make do, you have to take a look at your toolbox and what you have there. Many of us will find Excel there, so we have to make the best use of it. Explore it, and you will find a pretty powerful tool.

Conclusion

I ain't ashamed to say I use Excel. Compared to having nothing , this is still a much better situation.

Using Excel, the contract management system may have entered a static point — I can't really find a way to improve it significantly using Excel only. As I mentioned in my 2019 post:

However, once you can demonstrate practical benefits and a workflow, stepping up to a real made for the purpose document or contract management system is easier to climb.

The significant improvement now would be to get something that's made for its purpose.

Even so, you could, as I did, find that significant improvement is hard to attain. It's too radical a change, and I can't really demonstrate the benefits that would persuade large sections of folks who may not like the change. If that's the case, we may have to live with our Excel CMS for just a while longer.

On the other hand, there are other aspects in your legal department that you might find lacking, such as e-signatures or intake systems. Perhaps it's time to bring these up to scratch as well. Once others get used to e-signatures, it's a shorter leap to conclude that Excel is not the best solution we can have. Innovation is always a long journey, and at some point, you'd look back at your Excel CMS and find it a milestone of your early efforts.

#tech #ContractManagementSystem #Contracts #LegalTech #MicrosoftOffice #E-signature

Author Portrait Love.Law.Robots. – A blog by Ang Hou Fu

Feature image

I spent several nights and trips on aeroplanes thinking about how to innovate the contracting process in my company. Though I did do a lot of reading online and offline, it was a lonely journey. I had to separate the puff from the substance and the wheat from the chuff from what I was reading and planning. When I got to action, I realised that having ideas was the easy part; making them work is really tough. Some of that work showed its fruits, but much of it was still unfinished.

Why I would use Excel for my Contract Management SystemHow do I get on this legal technology wave? Where do I even start? A “contract management system” or a “document management system” (“CMS”) is a good place. Business operations are not affected, but the legal department can get their hands dirty and show results for it. If you wouldLove.Law.Robots.HoufuAn early effort. I have mixed views about this post 2 years later.

A tiny book review

At first, I was sceptical about reading another book on the process. ” Sign Here: The enterprise guide to closing contracts quickly “ by Alex Hamilton proved to be different. Alex Hamilton is a founder of Radiant Law, a law firm in the UK that focuses solely on the commercial contract process. They use technology and process improvement to deliver legal services differently. They've been doing it for ten years too, so they are here to stay. I was quite sure I would learn something different from this book.

Unfortunately, the book didn't teach me anything new. Instead, it validated many of my instincts and the conclusion I had reached after pondering the issue for years. That might sound like a nice ending, but I would rather read this from a book than cracking it from some stone and not being sure whether what I had was a real insight or baloney.

So, in short, I recommend the book. It put words to what my instinct and experience were telling me, and I am glad I read it. This is the real deal, in an accessible and practical format that anyone can read.

Sign Here: The enterprise guide to closing contracts quickly : Hamilton, Alex: Amazon.sg: BooksSign Here: The enterprise guide to closing contracts quickly : Hamilton, Alex: Amazon.sg: BooksAlex HamiltonI earn a commission from purchases made through this affiliate link.

Let's Pick Five

If you are not convinced yet, here are five lessons from the book. I think they're wise and spoke to my practical experience.

Thing 1: Speed matters when you're making contracts

Image by Free-Photos from Pixabay

The legal department is usually viewed as a roadblock. We stop others from making bad mistakes. We are the ones who are going to review the contract you just received from the counterparty. These points are valid, but there's a substantial cost in not acting fast. “Sign Here” raises lost revenue, postponed or even lost value and may even undermine relationships as the cost of delay in the contracting process. “Relationships are indeed being created and grown [as a result of the contract process], but successful relationships are often despite rather than because of the agreement.”

So speed really makes a difference. In my view, there's a customer relationship factor. Your internal customers like to hear a response from you. They can also tell our external customers that they care when they respond quickly.

Thing 2: There is no silver bullet

Photo by Cody Wingfield on Unsplash

“Sign Here” proclaims that despite vendors' claims, no single solution would solve all problems in the contracting process. I've always felt sceptical about silver bullet claims. I also felt unsure whether any completely new platform would succeed given its high costs.

There are two facets of real life that make any “silver bullet” difficult:

  • You don't live in a vacuum. I found several guerilla systems for contracting in the wild in my company. Expecting messy people to fit into your system would probably be a hard task, and I was not sure I was spending my capital effectively forcing people to like my favourite solution.
  • Resources are limited. It's simple. I have no budget, and I am still expected to do my regular work properly. Any innovation used to be nice to have. The amount of work it takes to put in a “silver bullet” solution (if there was such a thing) would have been extremely risky.

So no single solution works. You really have to go in there and figure out a good fit.

Thing 3: Change is a long series of steps

Image by wendy CORNIQUET from Pixabay

Related to the “silver bullet” fascination above is the belief that one solution solves all problems at once. It just doesn't work like that. Even if you had infinite resources and a highly motivated core of customers ready to do your bidding, the solution you have just implemented is not likely to be perfect now or in the future. The time horizon “Sign Here” suggests isn't months or years — it's weeks and then improved again later.

For myself, having users and putting solutions into production meant I had to fix bugs, answer questions and listen to suggestions. With some humility, I realised that these fixes and suggestions made the solution better. It also meant, sadly, that I had to get back to the drawing board.

Corollary to the fact that you will have to revisit your work repeatedly, it also means that you have to learn new things all the time continually. 😰😫

Thing 4: Be Clear and Reasonable

Photo by Timothy Meinberg on Unsplash

Consistent with the aim that contracts are relational rather than transactional, “Sign Here” recommends that terms aim first to be reasonable rather than extract maximum advantage, which is whittled down by mano-a-mano negotiations to something you can live with.

Related to the speed of contracting, clear and reasonable terms means that parties aren't sapped by the energy it takes to reach an agreement. I found internal customers are happy when they aren't fighting pointless battles, and when they don't have to explain to the counterparty or their legal department why our terms are so unfair. It also turns out that business folks aren't blind, and they like to discuss strategic matters that really matter to the deal. That starts with shunting out the stuff that doesn't matter.

Thing 5: Some technologies are more important than others

Image by Michael Schwarzenberger from Pixabay

I found the hardest issue with implementing change in contracting is what to prioritize. When you have limited time, resources and leadership capital, the changes you emphasize appears to be very significant. Document automation and AI contract review sound cool, while other less glorious things like storage systems and helpdesks also seem important.

One of the best parts about “Sign Here” is that it sets out a list of technologies you should focus on and why. Conversely, it also highlights technologies that you might hear about, but also their not-so-discussed limitations. It's one of the most fun parts of the book, so I won't spoil it for you.

Instead, I'd highlight the most important technologies that I thought were. It broadly matches the insights from the book.

  • Document template automation (Docassemble)
  • e-Signature (we just implemented DocuSign)
  • Intake system (I'm working on it)
  • Knowledge system (Probably try and perfect the SharePoint site we now have)

docassemble – Love.Law.Robots.Love.Law.Robots.Some of my posts on this blog on docassemble.

Conclusion

Buy the book!

#BookReview #LegalTech #Contracts #ContractManagementSystem #docassemble #E-signature #Law

Author Portrait Love.Law.Robots. – A blog by Ang Hou Fu

Feature image

I am not going to be shy about this. I really hate reading Non-Disclosure Agreements. Sometimes, they are known as NDAs, Confidentiality Agreements, and Mutual Confidentiality Agreements. Whatever guise they are in, they seem to say the same thing in many different ways. If there was a nuance, it's difficult to say what actual impact they have. Yet, we still have to figure it out and review them as necessary. Because somebody probably forgot to put in something that we need. Once they are signed, we move on. In short, a lot of time is spent on NDAs, but nobody cares. 🤢

That's what @thelawboutique_ execs Electra and Roisin found when they sat down to review the agreements they'd handled for their clients.

The #NDA effort-to-value ratio isn’t just appalling for the service providers – for in-house counsel it’s even worse. Can you relate? pic.twitter.com/CAuHQAkPQR

— oneNDA (@onendaclub) July 26, 2021

This kind of dysfunction is ripe for disruption. NDAs are probably one of the most straightforward problems in using AI for contract review. They have a certain structure and a limited set of clauses. You don't need to look far for an example — check NDAlynn. You can even enjoy NDALynn for free if you don't mind your document becoming part of the hivemind.

oneNDA is a different kind of disruptor. It suggests that life would be much easier for everyone if we sat together and agreed on one NDA. If you're curious what that crowdsourced NDA looks like, you can take a look at their website or download it here.

oneNDA Is Live! An M&A Module Is NextThe oneNDA project, which has sought to create a universal Non-Disclosure Agreement to cover confidential information, has gone live and is now available. However, the project will not stop th…Artificial Lawyerartificiallawyer

What I liked about oneNDA

  • It's short, simple and pretty. At two pages, they have really condensed the document into its finer parts.
  • The so-called “variables” only cover about half a page. Agreeing on the details of this document will probably take less than a few minutes. This is probably more substantial than many NDAs I have seen regarding time and costs saved (if that is the only thing you have to agree on).
  • It's licensed underCC BY-ND 4.0, a Creative Commons license. So yeah, I can share it here.

What I didn't like about oneNDA

  • Choices have been made, and not everyone will agree with them. You can check out their graveyard to read about what they decided to leave out in oneNDA. I can understand why they did it, but that will not stop anyone from adding it back in. You would then have to spend time reviewing it, which defeats the purpose.
  • It's licensed with ND (No Derivatives). This means you can't change and then distribute it, including sending it to your counter-party. It's a plausible controversy whether contract clauses can be copyrighted (they obviously can). I guess dictating how the NDA is used can help adoption by building a strong identity. In my view and having some background in open source, I honestly think this ND qualification is unnecessary. I would definitely think twice about these restrictions before using them.

My Conclusion

The creators of oneNDA have made a smart decision by aiming first for an NDA that is the simplest — having a commercial discussion. Logically speaking, it's like buttoning your shirt as you prepare for a business meeting. You shouldn't be spending much (if possible, any) lawyer or negotiation time on this sort of agreement. This NDA definitely helps you to reach that conclusion.

However, if you've reviewed enough NDAs, you would know that the arguments which prevent us from having a universal NDA aren't entirely rational. Somebody thinks their template is better, and we are going to have a debate over it. Sometimes it's easier to argue that we should stick to our template than selling a change which sounds like losing our freedoms. Maybe our language has been “tested”, and oneNDA hasn't. If I was conservative, having as many clauses in as possible is safer than leaving something out.

Reviewing NDAs is the express route to learning why contracts are dysfunctional.

Finally, there's a problem with NDAs. I first found out when I wrote my own NDA generator. Everyone sort of agrees that NDAs are low hanging fruit, but the reward of solving the problem isn't sweet or worth shouting to management. Nobody cares about NDAs, so nobody cares about the solution. Here lies an important lesson in innovation — some problems just aren't worth solving. The conclusion of my NDA generator was that people nodded at the “proof of concept”. Conversely, a letter generator that wasn't particularly complex or legal had a greater impact. They used it more often, and it saved them from learning how to choose a template.

On the other hand, like buttoning a business shirt, it wouldn't impress you if a button was in a different shape, or featured “magnets”.

oneNDA Is mediocreNDA: Thoughts on a Proposed Standard Nondisclosure Agreement – Adams on Contract DraftingoneNDA is a new initiative that “set out on a mission to standardise the NDA so that lawyers can spend less time on them and more time on more valuable work.” For more about oneNDA, go here. This week they released their “simple, plain English, open-source NDA,” also called, somewhat confusingly, on…Adams on Contract DraftingKen AdamsIt's great to know that I ain't alone in my conclusions.

So, while I am a firm supporter of standards, I am not excited about this one. oneNDA is great, but it is just another NDA.

Standards, the Importance of StandardsI explore the possibilities of using a taxonomy from the Legal Matter Standard Specification from SALI the Alliance.Love.Law.Robots.HoufuRead about a standard I am actually excited about.

Looking Forward

I may not be excited about oneNDA in its current state, but I am more curious about how technically they would implement modules for M&A. I hope it will be a useful tool that provides convenience and simplicity for users, and not just a choose your own NDA. Anything that keeps NDAs away from lawyers will be a boon for the whole process.

For now, count this sceptic out of the hivemind.

Enjoyed this post? You can read more about law or technology on Love.Law.Robots. by subscribing today. I post at least once a week and subscribers get a free members only newsletter. Thank you!

#Law #Contracts #Copyright #LegalTech #oneNDA

Author Portrait Love.Law.Robots. – A blog by Ang Hou Fu

Feature image

Getting a practising certificate might be an annual ritual for most lawyers in law firms in Singapore. Still, a recent case — Choo Cheng Tong Wilfred v Phua Swee Khiang — reminds us of its critical significance in our legal industry.

Suffice to say, because the lawyer did not have a practising certificate, he was not authorised to practice law in Singapore. Because he was not authorised, he was not entitled to any fees for legal work performed.

This rarely comes up because lawyers here must be in law firms to get a practising certificate, so this is an undeniable indicator of whether you are authorised or not. However, the implications are critical for anyone thinking of offering an alternative to law firms. Would you provide your expertise outside of a law firm if you can't get paid for it? By the way, it's a criminal offence too.

Let's say you want to practice law, but you don't want to be in a law firm. For example, maybe you aren't interested in the full service or boutique firm sort of business and are thinking of something radically different. Perhaps you would like to focus on a particular area of law and provide some consultancy, like Radiant Law (NB: Radiant Law is a law firm, more on this later). Maybe the business model is radically different. For example, some of your partners might be accountants or tech specialists, and you can't have them as directors or shareholders in a law firm without special approval.

This issue becomes thorny if you haven't considered it from the start. Imagine you think of an excellent idea for the public. You get funding from a VC, and the programmer who made this product is the other director of your company. If you didn't find out whether your company is providing legal services, you might well have doomed your project with the tint of illegality.

I know it when I see it.

Image by Kevin Phillips from Pixabay

So, what do you need to avoid if you do not want to provide legal services as an advocate and solicitor? Other than acts expressly prohibited under the Legal Profession Act, the case referred to the Turner test at [79] (emphasis added).

(a) Other than those specific acts listed in ss 30(1) and 30(2) of [the Legal Profession Act], an act is an act of an advocate and solicitor when it is customarily (whether by history or tradition) within his exclusive function to provide , e.g. giving advice on legal rights and obligations, drafting contracts and pleadings and pleading in a court of law.

(b) A person acts as an advocate and/or solicitor if, by reason of his being an advocate and solicitor, he is employed to act as such in any matter connected with his profession.

[2021] SGHC 154Tan Siong Thye J:The decision of Choo Cheng Tong Wilfred v Phua Swee Khiang

In the instant case, the lawyer might call himself a “business consultant”, but he gave legal advice (which the court noted is a quintessential service given by lawyers). Furthermore, the clients hired him because of his legal expertise. Therefore, the lawyer provided legal services as an unauthorised person and was not entitled to any fees for over a decade's worth of work.

I hate to say this, but the Turner test is an “I know it when I see it” test. If a user provides his own answers and an algorithm written by a lawyer turns it into a will, is the lawyer providing legal advice? If more law firms start to advise on adopting technology in contracting, would it become illegal for others to do the same?

Profound Implications

Image by S. Hermann & F. Richter from Pixabay

If the definition of providing legal services is too vague, that will cause a chilling effect on any product that borders on legal.

The reason why legal profession regulation is (perhaps) so restrictive is the protection of the public. The decision highlights two areas: lawyers with practising certificates can be regulated by the Law Society, and law firms pay insurance to cover professional negligence claims. There are several other rules relating to how a lawyer must undergo a practice management course before he can practice as an owner of a law firm or in his own name, and restrictions on management and ownership of law firms are also on this basis.

According to a recent article, this is perhaps a vivid illustration of why law firms or lawyers “will always be needed”. It's hard for me to imagine how jurisdictions will give up on protecting the public from fraudulent providers without some form of regulation. This kind of regulation would try to ensure some expertise behind products purporting to be legal.

Vertically Integrated Legal Service | The PracticeNeville Eisenberg and Richard Susskind.The PracticeHLS Center on the Legal Profession

On the other hand, it's hard to pin down what is unique about a lawyer's knowledge or expertise. With enough time on the job and the right training (not necessarily an LLB), Nonlawyers Can Be as Competent as Lawyers in Handling Contracts Work. In fact, lawyers might not possess all the skills required to study a legal process and figure out how to deliver it more efficiently or effectively. If lawyers can't do it properly, why can't someone else have a go at it?

For now, legal services backed by law firms seem to be the current equilibrium. Accounting firms like PwC have their own law firm. Radiant Law might not serve a client found on the street, but they are still a law firm. Perhaps we need a good rethink of what a law firm means today at some level. Furthermore, it would really help if the exceptions (if we have any) for non-traditional law firms were transparent.

Conclusion

Regulation is a serious roadblock if we want to see legal services being delivered in any alternative method. As Susskind and Eisenberg say, incorporating lawyers and law firms might be critical for alternative service providers to go around such issues. However, not everyone can incorporate a law firm or is willing to do this. Hopefully, the authorities can consider more transparent and sensible rules to limit the drawbacks of being unauthorised.

#Law #LegalTech #Singapore

Author Portrait Love.Law.Robots. – A blog by Ang Hou Fu

Feature image

I really like Notion

I have a confession to make. I really like Notion. Notion, at its most basic, is a note-taking application. It allows you to create pages that contain various content, like web links, markdown, checklists, embedded content and so on. I am not alone too in liking Notion — look for the #notion hashtag on Twitter, and you'd find people rabidly professing their love. They aren't celebrities trying to sell something, but normal and authentic people who love a product.

Notion – The all-in-one workspace for your notes, tasks, wikis, and databases.A new tool that blends your everyday work apps into one. It’s the all-in-one workspace for you and your team.Notion

My wife, who is a bit flabbergasted that I recommend Notion for everything , told me frankly, “Isn't this like Todoist? Or some journal app? There are dozens of such programs out there on the Internet. Free or paid.”

It's true. You can find dozens of apps that can provide you with a Kanban. It's a crowded field.

But Notion is special.

To me, it's a content management system that is very user friendly, yet very powerful at the same time. Like my wife says, the kanban, the markdown, the images, whatever, all those features aren't very interesting. However, you can dive straight into the app and create any of them in Notion. There isn't much to configure or install. You don't get to code it. To be frank, your interaction with Notion doesn't go further than typing text on a keyboard or enabling some option on a pop-up toolbar.

Is “no-code” for lawyers... or losers?

This brings me to the concept of “no-code” or “low code”. Apparently, lawyers are highly allergic to coding anything, so the idea that you don't have to do any coding is a feature. Among the front runners of this feature is Documate. It is a document assembly service built on docassemble but turns all that “programming” into buildable boxes so you don't have to do any coding. Another non-legal example is Scratch, an MIT project that teaches children how to program using blocks.

Document Automation Software – DocumateLegal document automation software to create powerful workflows that push data into your templates and forms.Documate

I haven't used Documate before, so I can't tell you whether it's good. Judging by its community though, it looks great. If you are attracted to its “no-code” premise and terrified of having to learn YAML and Jinga/Python in order to use docassemble, you should definitely give it a go.

As I can code, the idea of “no-code” turns me off though. Being able to tinker with a product is the fun part to me. Telling me I can't code means I cannot fully utilise the product. Once you become familiar with the capabilities of the product, your inability to code starts to look like the true barrier to achieving something. Suddenly, it's your fault, and that feeling really sucks.

It doesn't have to be this way. The opposite of “no-code” or “low code” isn't to code everything. To put it in another way, a product that asks you to do everything yourself is terrible. Ultimately a product has to provide features that you can use to achieve your aims. A particular set of features might be so limiting that it can do only one thing (and maybe do that one thing well). However, a different set of features could be so intriguing that you can use it for everything.

Think of “no-code” or “low code” this way:

  • You hardly ever need to code in Microsoft Word. Yet you can create any kind of document you want. No code ftw!
  • It ain't obvious, but you do some coding when you input a formula in Microsoft Excel. However, this “low code” environment allows you to perform calculations and filters and then use the output to visualize data. Excel is a prototypical database, a custom program and a report generator. Oops, sorry, Excel is a spreadsheet program.

Why I would use Excel for my Contract Management SystemHow do I get on this legal technology wave? Where do I even start? A “contract management system” or a “document management system” (“CMS”) is a good place. Business operations are not affected, but the legal department can get their hands dirty and show results for it. If you wouldLove.Law.Robots.HoufuSome good advice: consider using stuff you have already installed for innovation rather than inventing the wheel.

It's important to note that these Microsoft Office programs don't advertise themselves as “no-code”. They're still easy to use and accessible to all types of users.

Using Notion to improve my wife's website

So if you've been following so far, I think Notion is a great product that is equal parts friendly and powerful. It's also improving with a killer feature — an API. So a great product is now available to be integrated with others, making it even more powerful.

Notion APIConnect Notion pages and databases to the tools you use every day, creating powerful workflows.Notion API

My use case shows how you can use Notion to make small, impactful improvements to your projects.

Problem Statement

My wife is diligently developing her illustrator side hustle on her website, which I developed in roughly a week using NextJS. As an illustrator, a gallery is an important showcase of her work. Even though I had no qualms about doing it, being able to manage the content on the gallery herself would be a good feature. Content gets on the website quicker, and she'd get full autonomy on how to present it.

How the end product is going to look like – The Gallery page features categories where illustrations are organised. The pages for individual galleries feature a gallery of illustrations for the selected categories. Individual images feature some metadata.

My wife is not a coder, so choosing a data format for her was going to be challenging. It has to work with the website and work in her workflow too. A full-fledged content management system like WordPress would surely be overkill. However, explaining to her the intricacies of JSON, YAML or TOML would probably turn her off as well.

To turn you off, here's how the original YAML file looked like:

—- – caption: Travel sketches dateupdated: '2021-03-02' id: 3 location: travels title: Adventures and travels images: – caption: '' source: travels1.jpg thumbnailCaption: '' – caption: '' source: travels2.jpg thumbnailCaption: '' – caption: '' source: travels3.jpg thumbnailCaption: '' – caption: '' source: travels_4.jpg thumbnailCaption: '' portrait: true

I'd call this “code lite” like docassemble since she only has to edit one text file. But this will become problematic very fast:

  • What does “travels_1.jpg” mean? How do I write a caption for something which I don't even know what it is?
  • This is a text file, so the actual images are missing. It turns out that she still has to send the file to me, and then I have to rename it, and errm... a bunch of other manual steps before it gets on the website.
  • It's not difficult for an ordinary user to commit errors on YAML. For example, the indents are significant. Any typo on the source file names is sufficient to break the system as well.

Notion Everywhere!

Enter Notion. It does all of the above and it does it even better. The YAML text file is now replaced with a screen that looks like this:

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/secure.notion-static.com/b366764b-cef6-4c06-8821-93d0a26c7c7d/Untitled.png

Each box is clickable, and it leads you to the illustration's own page.

Deceptively, it looks like a gallery, but its underlying structure is a database. So I can view all my pictures in a user-friendly gallery, which allows for searching and filtering. Furthermore, the gallery packs an interface for me to upload new illustrations. It's not obvious from the screenshot, but you can even create new categories of illustrations.

Editing the metadata of an individual illustration is also straightforward:

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/secure.notion-static.com/d0737aaf-1ec4-4118-a480-26ee662b240b/Untitled.png

The gallery also allows my wife to attach her illustration to the individual item, so I am able to get everything I need to create the gallery from Notion.

Finally, using Notion API, the NextJS website generator grabs all the information from Notion to create the gallery you now see on the website. (NB: As of writing the Notion API does not support images, so that step is still manual at this time.)

Once you have decided on the scheme of your data, you can directly translate it into a user-friendly Notion page. My wife doesn't need to touch any code, but she still gets to plan her gallery in the way she wants. (Now she just has to scan some illustrations. 😝)

Conclusion

I hope this demonstration gets you to question what we really want from “no-code” or “low code”. It's sexy to claim that lawyers don't get to touch any code, or that they can automate their workflows by dragging and dropping some boxes. However, we can be more discerning than that. What exactly are the features of this product? What can I do with it? Does it make me pull my hair out at the limitations it imposes on me? Or does it offer to sacrifice me on the altar of my crappy computer skills? In the end, designing a good product is a lot more difficult than having an effect that doesn't need you to code. Even a product made for general use (like Word or Notion) might be more relevant than a product that is labelled “legal tech”.

And if you ask me, a good barometer of a great product is the fans who are willing to say nice things about it.

#Programming #tech #docassemble #blog #MicrosoftOffice #Notion #LegalTech

Author Portrait Love.Law.Robots. – A blog by Ang Hou Fu

Feature image

I had fun trying to stay awake during ICAIL 2021 about 2 weeks ago. Following ICAIL 2021 was tough because of my rudimentary knowledge of natural language processing. Furthermore, it's hard to concentrate at 2 AM. 😪😪😪

There was, however, one thing I understood that got me excited — a demonstration of the Legal Matter Standard Specification (LMSS) from the SALI Alliance.

The LMSS is a “common language” for describing legal work. As you can see from a list of “area of law” codes in version 1 of the LMSS, they have sought to compile a fairly comprehensive list. As an open standard, you can survey the terms used and covered on WebProtege.

SALI Alliance – Review the SALI StandardPowered by Wild Apricot Membership Software

Having a common language between suppliers and consumers of legal services can be very useful. You would be able to compare services between suppliers. Right now, a law firm can provide “corporate advisory”, but what does that actually mean? Advising companies in the entertainment industry is quite different from companies in the logistics industry. Furthermore, what kind of logistics are we talking about? Shipping? E-commerce? “Corporate advisory” becomes a protean and useless term. When words are devoid of meaning, consumers stick to a law firm that simply “knows their business”.

Once everyone agrees to a standard meaning for a common set of terms, interoperability becomes possible for everyone in the industry. Service providers can describe their work and experience in a detailed and accurate manner. Consumers would spend much less time trying to describe what they are looking for.

The LMSS will still be useful for people who are not directly involved in the provision and consumption of legal services (like me). As a taxonomy built by experts in their fields, I can find a set of comprehensive terms that I can use for my projects. This saves me the trouble of fretting whether I have come up with all the possible categories I need to label my data.

In this regard, version 2 of the LMSS, which contains more terms related to work products and services and their relationships, is far more ambitious and useful.

Using the taxonomy, I can label the stages of the work and the types of work carried out in a legal department. This would allow me to see the number of times and the time taken to do certain work, and then allow me to cross-reference service providers to see if this can be outsourced as well. This would only work if the data from the legal department and the service providers can talk to each other in terms that all of us can understand.

Of course, standards have many problems.

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/standards.pngSource: xkcd (https://xkcd.com/927/)

Luckily for the legal industries, standards are hard to come by. Instead, judging from SALI Alliance's modest but powerful membership, these standards are not being used enough. This is why it was pretty big news that CLOC endorsed the SALI Alliance. When more participants use a standard, then it becomes the standard.

I asked this question during the presentation: how useful would the LMSS be for other jurisdictions? While many terms are indeed drafted from a US perspective, the underlying concepts are also fairly universal. As such, I would be able to find terms I can relate to, even if I had a more precise term for it. Anyway, given the graph structure of the LMSS, more terms could be added and their relationship stated as “also known as” and “see also” for similar terms, without affecting the underlying nodes. This means that with some effort, you can still make comparisons between your own data and LMSS's taxonomy .

Anyway, it appears that there is a working group for Canada on the LMSS version 2, and it would be interesting to me how they would contribute to the existing standard. Should Singapore contribute to the LMSS? It'd be interesting, but I would like to use this a little more so that I can think about how it can be sold to the local community.

To be frank, the most positive thing I see about the LMSS and SALI Alliance is that it's relatively open. While being able to take part in its development is a huge benefit to being part of the SALI Alliance, you don't need to be a member to develop your own applications. It's released under the Creative Commons License, so you can use it freely.

As mentioned, I am going to try and label some stuff using the taxonomy from LMSS. Here's hoping I can create something out of it!

#LegalTech #blog

Author Portrait Love.Law.Robots. – A blog by Ang Hou Fu

Feature image

I have been following the Centre of Computational Law at SMU with keen interest. They're the guys who illustrated the history of Singapore law with pretty graphs.

Phang Goh and Soh “THE DEVELOPMENT OF SINGAPORE LAW: A BICENTENNIAL RETROSPECTIVE” at paragraph 62/page 32. (From Celebrate 200 Years of Singapore law with pretty graphs)

They've also been involved in a pretty nifty combination of “Rules as Code” and docassemble.

Brand-new #legaltech
✅ Open Source
✅ Runs on #RulesAsCode
✅ Understands exceptions
✅ Answers legal questions
✅ Gives explanations in English
✅ Gives all valid explanations for each answer
✅ Integrated with @Docassemblehttps://t.co/XQ5jIXH1ck

— Jason Morris💻⚖️🇨🇦 (@RoundTableLaw) June 3, 2021

I've heard a lot about Rules as a Code and I am curious how it could apply to real world applications. So I am definitely going to give this a run and see how far I can go with it.

As such, I was pretty curious to see the Centre in the news. Unfortunately, it's not really about those cool applications of computers and law I mentioned, but something dearer to every Singaporean's heart — jobs. It features SMU's new four year Computing and Law undergraduate course.

BSc (Computing & Law) | School of Computing and Information Systems (SMU)Singapore Management University (SMU)

This excerpt from the news article tells you most of what you need to know about the course.

Students take modules from both the university's law and computing faculties, with an even split of modules across the two fields. The course starts off focusing on areas where there is significant overlap such as intellectual property. Prof Lim said that when they graduate, students will be able to work in various places like tech or legal firms, in roles that may not exist yet.

There are some interesting things written between the lines, so let me extract them here for you.

First, Students graduate with a Bachelor of Science (BSc), not a Bachelor of Laws (LLB). This means they can't apply for admission to the bar when they graduate. It's possible to progress to a JD in SMU Law, which would allow you to practice, but that would mean 6 years of studies instead of the usual 4.

Second, the article appears to concede that graduates might not be able to find work which takes full advantage of their skills.

If you would like to know what jobs exist in LegalTech in Singapore right now, you can take a look at Legal Tech Jobs:

Legal Tech Jobs filtered for jobs with location “Singapore”. By the way, that single job does not require a computer science degree.

In all, a course combining law and computers like this is going to require (1) bold students, and (2) students who have bold and supportive parents.

But maybe we are looking at this the wrong way. This isn't for lawyers who want to code. They are for coders who want to law. And if you want to look at it from that perspective, many things start to make sense. Take a look at the mix of subjects in the compulsory part of the degree:

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/secure.notion-static.com/393cec40-d09f-47c6-b192-1d82c501a801/Untitled.pngScreenshot from https://scis.smu.edu.sg/bsc-computing-law/curriculum (as of June 2021)

Some knowledge of intellectual property law is going to be helpful for someone building solutions. Contract law, company law and the like are going to be beneficial for someone who is going to start a company, even if it isn't strictly in LegalTech. Torts, data protection, criminal law? Good to know, and will be very useful if you were thinking about Access to Justice. I am less familiar with the Computing Core section, but they seem more focused on creating products and running software development than I expected. Throw in some project management experience, and you have a unique candidate who can hit the ground running.

Would I take a course like this when I was 18? I don't think so. Students would generally expect to follow a well-trodden path to a career they already know. As a law student, it would be a lawyer. Maybe, as a backup plan, an in-house lawyer.

This is still an alternative career, but in an age of disruption, being able to think outside of your silo would be excellent preparation for a long and fruitful career. If I could speak to my 18-year-old self, I would tell him to carefully look at this.

#Singapore #LegalTech #Law #Training

Author Portrait Love.Law.Robots. – A blog by Ang Hou Fu

Feature image

COVID-19 brought home a few trends most would not bother with otherwise. Remote working instead of showing up at an office and passing four budgets in as many months — it’s time to question deeply-held assumptions.

One deeply-held assumption which we might not be able to shake off is the archaic and highly formal process of getting wills done. The Wills Act is considerably vintage, dating earlier than the mid-nineteenth century. As such, it contains interesting oddities such as “a blank space shall intervene between the concluding word of the will and the signature”. You can do this by simply pressing “Enter” after you finish writing your will.

What do these restrictions mean in today’s context?

The main obstacle placed by the Wills Act is that two witnesses are required to witness your signing. You can type and save your will on your computer as much as you like, but it cannot be valid until it is witnessed physically.

The physical requirement of witnessing also makes the validity of e-signatures dubious. The Electronic Transactions Act excludes the creation and execution of wills explicitly. Your will therefore must have a physical manifestation, and someone has to use a pen (or other inking devices) to sign it.

Why is there resistance to change?

It’s not as if no one is trying here. Most people would like to attribute this to “tradition”. However, I also believe that this is perhaps the area where witnesses to a signature does have an impact on disputes. Wills can be challenged for various arbitrary reasons; claiming that [the testator was not thinking straight is one of the easiest](GHOST_URL__/settling-scores-through-your-will-it-doesnt-end-well/). When done correctly, your witnesses can provide that evidence.

The remote nature of e-wills and e-signature provides new avenues for attacks on the validity of your will. Somebody else clicked to sign in your place. How do you know someone is under undue influence when you are looking at them through your webcam?

I am not saying that these problems are insurmountable, even today. However, a process that works wells already exists right now. People who care about their will are willing to go to a law firm and pay for it. If a better solution is out there, it has to be significantly better than the current one.

… But this area is certainly looking at it.

Having a process that works does not mean it is perfect. In fact, there has been much movement in this area:

It’s not clear whether the paid services are making money on their own. The “referral” aspect of the business seems obvious in cases like OCBC, so I suspect most services come together with some other (financial planning) product.

Of course, given the legal background, all these services can only draft a will. Execution is either a separate service (usually involving law firms) or DIY.

And there is room for improvement.

I tried the OCBC service and had the opportunity to view the results of WillMaker. From what I can tell, all these options employ an expert system to generate a will. The problem with the expert system is that the service is only as good as the questions asked.

I previously drafted wills as a charitable service. My primary audience then probably substantially overlaps with someone willing to use the OCBC service. If you would like to generate your own will and your assets are uncomplicated, the current services should fulfil your needs 60-80% of the time. The services are thus very substantial and useful. If you have a lot of odd requests and complicated assets, you must go to a law firm to sort out the ends.

The real problem is that most people who want to make a will don’t have any idea what they are doing. I don’t mean this in a legal sense like trying to dispose of your CPF by will. At this point, they are exploring their options or looking for an expert to challenge their conclusions. A will generator that merely does what the user wants may not be enough. The user wants to know whether the will they have in mind is the one they want.

A will that doesn’t inspire confidence in its user isn’t going to go very far. After going through the form filling exercise, users confront the formal requirements of will execution. They get worried about whether they are doing the right thing. Then they realise that they do need a law firm.

In the end, if you are going to go to some law firm anyway, the need to do an E-Will or e-signature vanishes.

Conclusion

This post might sound bleak for people looking for a change. However, look positively, and it is obvious that there is a need that hasn’t been fulfilled yet. Perhaps charging for an expert system is not likely to draw enough people to experiment with their options. The point is that there should be a system that is demonstratively better than what we have now. Only then will there be an impetus to remove the formalistic limitations of wills.

So who wants to do an E-Will?

#Law #tech #E-signature #ElectronicTransactionsAct #LegalTech #Singapore #Wills #WillsAct

Author Portrait Love.Law.Robots. – A blog by Ang Hou Fu